jeudi 17 novembre 2005

Getting the enterprise out of CMS Digital Web Magazine recently did an interview with Tony Byrne of CMSWatch. I like articles like this, as they pull me up out of parochial viewpoints and give a nice glimpse of what's going on in the broader market. In particular, I like goring sacred cows, even if they're my own. I especially like how Tony took on the conventional wisdom about entperprise content management. Chris McDonough did a nice job saying enterprise doesn't mean better. Tony takes on the word in the context of CMS: I sometimes find that she who assumes the mantle of [base "]enterprise[per thou]tends to win because it sounds more important and on the side of the business, as opposed to on the side of a parochial department. Tony gives an interesting and useful analysis of the tension here. On one hand you have decentralizing tendencies of unstructured, unmanaged information. The Internet makes it easier and easier to communicate without rules or your boss's permission. On the other hand, companies have legitimate issues, including compliance, for centralizing things. Tony calls for some new terms and new covenants for how the CMS market should discuss this. I like the language he uses: "relative freedom" vs. "put the clamps down". Perhaps "departmental CMS" equals "customer-driven": The latter, publishing, tends to follow a lot of informal rules and departmental norms, and -- in successful companies -- is very customer-driven. The enterprise is explicitly relying on the judgments of knowledge workers and their understanding of the customer. It is often counterproductive to standardize formats, processes, and content models here. A traditional web content management vendor is ideal for this use case. In many companies, employees are simply thankful to have a job and are conditioned to not have enthusiasm, not go out-of-the-way, and always seek permission. Let's call those the losers. [wink] In other companies, employees feel like participants in mission, feel empowered to speak, work their way around obstacles, and don't wait for permission to help customers. Let's call those the winners. Does the classic "enterprise" CMS software and deployment sound more like the latter or the former? After reading Tony's article, I think you'll agree that "enterprise" can often be a proxy for "control". Then Tony drops what I think is the bomb: I think enlightened enterprises are beginning to realize that they need multiple document management and content management systems.. To me, "enterprise CMS" is roughly equivalent to saying "mainframe CMS". All your bases are belong to us, to quote a catchy Internet expression. Everything goes into one computer/cluster, one software, one set of high priests, all safe and rigid. Spontaneity, enthusiasm, agility...bahhh, that's not enterprise, that's garage-mode, we're grown-ups here, bub. IMO, Tony's prescription follows what I think is the future of CMS: federated content management. You don't presume you can build one big CMS instance. Nor can the integrator do one big gig/deployment. You yield to several realities: capital budget, customer in-house politics, and the truth that most software sucks. Instead of one big sale/deployment, you do five or ten. They might all use the same product/platform, but they'll have different configurations, different deal sizes, different politics, etc. Obviously this is good for mid-tier CMS packages and mid-tier consultants, and for full disclosure, I'm an advocate for small-business open source. But I always get a laugh when an open source package/company puts the word "enterprise" in front of their offering. They have no idea what it entails; they simply want a bigger deal size. In the process, they set themselves up for an impossible set of audience expectations and later wonder why they lose money on each consulting deal. Let's say it differently: if the deal size is more than 30% of your annual revenue, you'll find it painful trying to play in the "enterprise" market. If you have 5 times more product offerings than sales people, or even more products than consultants, it's time to wake up and smell the coffee. Pick a market where you have a reasonable shot of dominating. Don't get lured by the false prophet of "enterprise". Take a deep breath, show some fortitude, and get on the cluetrain. You, your business, and your customers will thank you. Those are my views, not Tony's. But I think Tony has done our market a service by moving the discussion away from tired old monikers and onto the true underlying forces. 1:01:17 PM   comment []

Plone compared to a Java-based document management system AkaSig blogpost giving a nice feature-by-feature analysis and comparison of Plone to another system, at a technical level. 11:29:13 AM   comment []

Givin' Enfold the Windows-love they deserve Enfold is a Plone company, right? I mean, it's started by a Plone co-founder. Over the last year, Enfold has sponsored a bunch of work by Mark Hammond, of PythonWin fame, to improve Zope's story on Windows. Mark (along with others, such as Tim Peters and Christian Theune) has made a deep and sustained impact on how Zope behaves on Windows. This was an area of neglect, with few people that had the talent and interest to step up. Enfold is a Windows company and sells Plone stuff for Windows. It was in their interest to help Zope. Props to Enfold for doing so. (And props also for having a sweet looking company homepage.) 10:57:21 AM   comment []

Heading to the Plone Belgium meeting, Dec 7 The Plone Belgium user group is having its second meeting. I plan to attend, in conjunction with a ZEA partners meeting the subsequent 2 days. I attended the first Plone Belgium meeting and was very, very impressed. Turnout was good (around 30 people), the presentations were informative, and the folks enthusiastic. Afterwards we went out to a local cafe for another 2 hours of gabbing. Very enjoyable. 10:44:24 AM   comment []